By 
We all know the story: a few months ago Apple accused Samsung of violating both their aesthetic and UI design of the original iPhone, unique intellectual properties Apple claimed to own. A jury agreed for the most part and Samsung was ordered to pay up around $1 billion in damages. The court drama continued today as Apple and Samsung met in court yet again — Apple hoping Judge Koh would agree to a permanent sales ban on the infringing products — and Samsung hoping Judge Lucy Koh would agree to issue another trial due to Velvin Hogan’s juror misconduct.
Both requests were denied this evening with Judge Koh ruling that Apple wasn’t able to provide sufficient evidence that consumers were flocking to Samsung devices based on their infringing features, stating that the court had already performed “irreparable harm” in the case. In the court filing she said:
“Neither statements about broad categories, nor evidence of copying, nor the conjoint survey provides sufficiently strong evidence of causation. Without a casual nexus, this court cannot conclude that the irreparable harm supports entry of an injunction.”
When it came to Samsung, Koh felt that Samsung was unable to act with “reasonable diligence” in discovering Hogan’s past, all of which was disclosed during the jury selection process. When it came to Hogan running his mouth in interviews post-trial, Koh said interviews couldn’t be submitted as evidence unless Hogan stated somewhere that he had come to his decision from outside knowledge in the case. Since he never said anything of the sort — no dice, Samsung.
So, while both sides walk away empty handed, Samsung’s final grand total is still up in the air. Judge Koh has yet to rule on either additional, or decreased damages in Samsung’s total payout.
[Injunction Denial, Juror Misconduct Denial | via The Verge 1, 2]
I think a re-trail was in order based off what Hogan said at the end of the last one. Damages are supposed to be awarded as that, damages, however he said that he wanted to teach Samsung a lesson and send a message to the rest of the industry.
Apple has to go or at the very least brought to its knees, begging samsung for parts.
Yes, we get it. Samsung is our shining white light and Apple is nothing but pure evil. This is getting old.
We just want Apple to stop trying to stop the sale of products that we want to spend are hard earned money on.
Maybe Samsung should have thought twice before blatantly ripping off the original iPhone then. I know you’re all going to downvote me for this because I’m ruining your little circlejerk, but can you honestly tell me that the original Galaxy S looked nothing like the iPhone 3G? Yes, Apple did take it too far but Samsung should have never started it in the first place.
Actually, if you want to get really technical about it, the Galaxy S improved on the old feature phone, known as the Samsung Instinct. The Instinct hit at about the same time as the iPhone 3G and was supposed to be Samsung’s response to the iPhone, but didn’t quite work out that way. If you look at the styling, they’re about the same, with the Instinct being more narrow.
http://mobileroar.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/iphone_instinct.jpg
The Galaxy S’s biggest improvements were increase in size and making it a smartphone, over the Instinct. So, how exactly did the Galaxy S rip off the iPhone 3G, if Samsung improved on it’s OWN design?
To give you more of a sense of which may have came first: The Instinct gained FCC approval in January 2008 while the iPhone 3G gained approval in June 2008. Five months apart, so could we say maybe Apple kind of copied the design of the Instinct? Nah, probably not.
Are you seriously trying to convince me that the Galaxy S looks more like the Instinct than the 3GS?
No, people like you can’t be convinced of anything, once your mind is set and determined to think only one lopsided way. I’m simply pointing out your argument is incorrect. The Galaxy S line is an IMPROVEMENT on the Instinct, not a copy of the 3G, 3GS, or iPhone 4. Of course, again, once you believe something, you can’t be convinced otherwise. I’ve seen the photos of the 3G/3GS beside the original Galaxy S, and while there are some similarities, the simple fact that you can’t seem to process is that the Galaxy S did NOT copy the 3G/3GS.
People like me? Please explain what defines a person like me. The only argument you managed to make in that whole paragraph is ‘I’m right, and you’re wrong.
‘http://i.imgur.com/XnW4y.jpg
Why don’t you take a look at these three phones again and tell me which two look most similar.
Your photo proves my point. The Instinct came out, then the iPhone, then the Galaxy S.
What defines a person like you is one who simply can’t bring their self to admit when they’re wrong. If you can’t look at the photos you shared and see the similarities in the Galaxy S & Instinct, then you are clearly blind by following Apple and will believe everything they tell you. What’s the physical similarities between the iPhone and the Galaxy S? The home button, overall size, and polished ring around the Galaxy S. The iPhone lacks a front camera and the side buttons are more hidden on the Galaxy S, plus the Galaxy S has capacitive buttons, where the iPhone does not. What’s the similarities between the Galaxy S and the Instinct? The overall shape, the polished ring around the phone, and two capacitive buttons + a capacitive home button for the Instinct vs the hardware button on the Galaxy S.
Edit: If you can’t see the similarities between the Instinct & Galaxy S, but do see similarities between the iPhone & Galaxy S, you’re clearly biased.
This is like the pot calling the kettle black.
First of all, the iPhone looks nothing at all like the instinct. The fact that the Galaxy S has a front facing camera and the iPhone doesn’t is irrelevant. We’re talking about design, not features. When the Galaxy S came out there was nothing that could take advantage of it anyways so it was fundamentally useless. Oh wait, there were some shitty third party video calling apps that nobody used and everybody forgot about a year or two later when Skype finally came to Android.
The fact that the Galaxy S has capacative buttons beside the physical home buttons means nothing – they’re only there because Android requires those buttons.
All of the similarities that you drew between the instinct and the Galaxy are true for the iPhone bar the physical buttons because iOS doesn’t require it.
Why don’t we throw in the tacky icon borders Samsung threw in to mimick iOS?
Also, stop trying to draw assumptions about me because you couldn’t be farther from the truth. I don’t own any Apple products let alone iOS devices and I’ve owned the i9000 since it came out along with the i9100. If anyone here is biased, it’s you.
Again, I don’t expect you to believe anything I told you. I did say you were biased, but never said you owned any iProducts. Once again: When you already have it cemented into your mind that “Samsung blatantly ripped off the iPhone” with the Galaxy S, there is no hope for you to be even minimally persuaded to believe anyone else could be marginally correct. I only presented facts. You presented an argument, and it was considered, though dismissed.
And throw in the “tacky icon bars?” Do you know how dumb that argument is? Oh, wait, you can’t be convinced otherwise. I’ll be on my way. You can stay here and argue your “tacky” points.
Right. So, you’re full of facts and I’m just full of arguments that can be dismissed.
Like I said, once again your entire argument was ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’.
If you’re seriously sitting there reading my argument and fussing over the word ‘tacky’ then I’m wasting my time here because you clearly aren’t listening to anything I just wrote.
So you’re saying since the instinct is way smaller that it doesn’t resemble the Galaxy S?
That means since the iPhone is smaller, that the Galaxy S doesn’t resemble it. How lovely.
The instinct looks lyk a very slender version of the iPhone. I can see tings that look alike, but I know it’s not an iPhone.
I didn’t say that?
Apparently thstt win’t happen. Apple ended the parts relationship with Samsung and now us contracted with Taiwan Semiconductor for parts.
except that the ipad mini is made with a samsung screen and speaker
Even for that will halt. They will go to other manufacturers.
They only have qaulcomm and lg left and hopefully the sales of the nexus will solidify them in the market and give them the strength to say no!
I honestly think google gave them the bid to help them. The are dead last and losing ground fast in the mobile world. HTC will probably be next just based on the market.
They will turn to either sharp or LG for displays. They have Taiwan semiconductor for their future SOC’s
They won’t be begging Samsung. They have new part vendors for future manufacturing of apple products.
fire out the Samsung’s lawyers!
So the below statement would denote a smaller payout for Apple as Koh has decided that despite the guilty verdict people were not going to Samsung just because of these infringements.
“…wasn’t able to provide sufficient evidence that consumers were flocking to Samsung devices based on their infringing features, stating that the court had already performed “irreparable harm” in the case.”
Unsurprising bs from judge Koh. Why don’t they scrap this trial already and go straight to appeal.
They should go back to trial by combat. Get all the company big-wigs to duke it out. No last minute hiring of a ringer and making them SR VP of Eastern operations though…
I would find that hella entertaining :)
“Judge” Koh’s actions during this trial will only help Samsung in the long run, so the more they get her to make an ass of herself the better the reversal will ultimately be
I think its about time that all these kids where sent to the corner holding hands until they made up. Come on boys and girls lets be friends. All this is getting to be too much.
James and anyone else defending Apple and koh both, missed the article last December when koh accidentally leaked Apple’s own internal findings that they did not lose sales because of Samsung and that people were able to tell the difference between apple and Samsung products. From Apple’s own research. This is just silly stuff wasting time, money, and resources.
Can I please have a link to that article?
I don’t get how Samsung’s app drawer is being used. For starters there apps have a background, the apps themselves aren’t square. So Apple can sue because they used square app backgrounds that just happen to look as square as an iPhone app?
Unreasonable!!
And there are WAY more phones that have a rectangular shape. Someone posted the Samsung Instinct. That phone curves just like the iPhone. So what’s wrong with that? The Galaxy S isn’t even the same size as the iPhone, so they’re argument would be that the phone curves just like it, but then the iPhone curves like the instinct.
I’m so confused on what’s really being argued on. -_-